A call for “widespread mutual listening” — as advocated by Rabbi Rachel Barenblat ’96 in her op-ed last week — is noble and worth pursuing, but it is not a substitute for the ceasefire resolution presented to the Williamstown Select Board. The insistence by both Rabbi Barenblat and the Select Board to bring together “both sides” of this issue, the insistence that there are sides at all, serves only to enable the continuation of violence. What is the opposing side of a call to end violence?
In conversations, emails, and meetings between Rabbi Barenblat, the Select Board, and others, as well as in Rabbi Barenblat’s op-ed, those presenting the ceasefire resolution have heard that it is biased, that it is causing trauma and fear for some community members, and that some attendees of the Select Board meeting on Feb. 12 felt afraid or uncomfortable. As these discussions move toward creating a resolution that “more of our Town” will support, I can’t help but wonder to what “more” of the Town we’re referring. Who among us must be convinced of the value of Palestinian life? Who among us must be convinced that over 28,000 Palestinians killed is too many? Whose trauma and whose safety is Rabbi Barenblat advocating that we prioritize? Whose fear during a Town meeting filled with people of color must be assuaged? What are we prioritizing over passing this resolution immediately, as each day brings more death and destruction to Gaza?
The concern that a resolution “can cause local harm” assumes that the lack of a resolution is not harming anyone. This is not the case. As Rabbi Barenblat shared in her op-ed, many of the people she serves have come to her with fear and trauma. Students at the College have shared the grief, tensions, and fear that they have experienced on campus since Oct. 7. I know some friends of color who feel exposed and unsafe in ways they haven’t felt since the backlash against Arab and Muslim communities after 9/11. It is our local silence that is causing local harm, not the prospect of a ceasefire resolution.
Rabbi Barenblat’s implied accusation of bias, too, obfuscates the reality of the conflict. The situation before Oct. 7 was not neutral, nor one in which all powers were equal. Israel has the second-highest per capita military spending in the world, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. In addition, Israel is the largest recipient of United States foreign military financing, receiving $3.8 billion annually. The political, financial, and military power to change this situation lies with Israel and its allies. Though there is a long history of Palestinian resistance to the daily violence and indignity of life under occupation, this resistance is consistently condemned by Israel and its allies no matter what form it takes.
Furthermore, the proposed resolution does not “singularly condemn Israel without mention of other nations.” It also condemns and criticizes the United States, without which Israel’s government would be unable to continue its airstrikes in southern and central Gaza. Israel is not held to a unique standard: All nations are prohibited from violence against civilians under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. If Palestine was recognized as a state (something much of the Western world has refused to do), if that state were engaging in an asymmetric war against civilians, and if the United States were actively and financially supporting that war, then those presenting this resolution would loudly condemn that state. We do, of course, condemn the Hamas attacks, as we condemn all violence. The resolution is focused on Israel and the United States in its condemnation and criticism because we, as citizens and taxpayers of the United States, are materially supporting the violence being committed in Gaza.
Rabbi Barenblat’s op-ed includes different views on the conflict from people in the northern Berkshire Jewish community. I agree with the viewpoint that “what’s happening in Gaza is indefensible.” I am horrified by the viewpoint that “Israel has no choice but to bombard Gaza.” Giving space to this viewpoint, in print, as if it is somehow valid and not completely inhumane, is obscene and dangerous. The idea that Israel has no choice but to slaughter over 28,000 Palestinians through indiscriminate bombing must be forcefully refuted by anyone with concern for human life.
I hope we can find agreement on a ceasefire resolution, and do so with the urgency the people in Gaza deserve.
Benjamin Grimes is a member of Berkshires for Collective Liberation, a local group is advocating a ceasefire.